A MOTHER who has been told her daughter will be adopted because she does not have the mental capacity to look after her claims the child has been "stolen".

Rachel, of Strelley, whose full name cannot be revealed for legal reasons, has been fighting for the last three years to bring her daughter home.

As previously reported in the Evening Post, the child, who also cannot be named, was taken away from her mother when she was born 13 weeks prematurely and with severe breathing problems. Officials felt Rachel could not cope with her medical needs.

A psychiatrist said she was not capable of instructing her own solicitor and an official solicitor – a lawyer acting for those unable to represent themselves – was appointed but offered no evidence at a custody hearing.

The 24-year-old has vowed to take her case to the European Court of Human Rights, backed by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, after a second report found she was mentally able to instruct a solicitor.

"They have stolen my daughter," said Rachel yesterday.

"It makes me angry, I've wanted her to live with me ever since she was born."

Rachel, who visits her daughter once a fortnight, has been told the child will still be adopted in three months' time.

She will then be barred from seeing her.

She added: "I feel it's in her best interests to live with me.

"I feel as if I am backed into a corner. I feel powerless. She said to me last week 'when can I come and live with you?' I say to her you are my baby, you are my daughter."

Mr Hemming said: "The court seems obsessed with avoiding the truth. There has been no willingness to get an independent assessment of Rachel's capabilities.

"All the independent assessments we have had so far have indicated that she does not have learning difficulties. In my view, this is a case where a child has been judicially stolen from their parent."

A spokesman for Nottingham City Council said they were not able to comment on individual cases.

He added: "Such cases are decided by the courts, taking into account all the information presented by all parties and putting the future welfare of the child as the priority."

Director of Specialist Services at the council's children's services department, Sue Gregory, previously said: "The matter was put before the Family Court which considered extensive assessments.

"The mother was represented in court, independent of the council. The court made a decision based on all the information it was presented with by all parties."